Now, it suffices to transpose the argument to the scenario of “The Work of art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” to understand that Benjamin never celebrates a dismissal of creativity for political reasons, in a socialist realism manner.
Benjamin’s concept of “aura” because it is this aura of the work of art that tends to disappear with the advent of the arts of reproduction (photography and film).
What does the term mean exactly?
How can artwork reproduction entail a “decay of this aura”?
Why does such a decline represent a positive event in terms of politicization?
What does Benjamin mean by politics in his essay?
We define the aura as the unique phenomenon of distance, however close it may be.
If, while resting on a summer afternoon, …show more content…
Film, for instance, encourages the audience to assume a more critical attitude than theater does, because it allows the audience to identify with the actor through the camera Besides, film shows things “from different perspectives and enriches our field of perception”
Benjamin’s views on cinema as an art of the masses are much indebted to a Marxist conception of politics.
Actually, there are no political conceptions free of ideology although there have been many attempts to exploit and dominate the masses through art – Riefenstahl’s film Triumph of the Will produced in 1934 remains perhaps the best example of a very successful aesthetic enterprise of the kind.
It is only this latter use of ideology that threatens and betrays art because what seems to characterize art is precisely a “will” that never fully identifies itself with a “truth” or a “cause”.
Benjamin’s so-called “bipolar categories” (ritual / political, cult value / exhibition value) do not imply any dismissal of the artist’s creativity in the name of politics, nor do they praise the arts of reproduction (photography and film) in …show more content…
Benjamin’s idea is not that photography is in itself more revolutionary than other arts, but rather that its novelty (and film’s novelty too) entails a “decline of the aura” and discloses new possibilities for art.
On the other hand, it was perhaps hasty to draw conclusions about the use of new artistic media as he did. It is true that “even if we except commercial film, film itself has hardly evolved in the direction of politicization announced by Benjamin” (ROCHLITZ, 149).
It is more a question about authenticity than genuineness for what really matters is the fact that the work of art is now emancipated from its character of object
From now on, the original work does not bear any authority whatsoever.
First: because the reproductions became independent of it.
Second: because the copies can be now put into situations which would be out of reach for the original.
It is clear that his evaluation of the whole process of “liquidation of aura” is rather positive. The objects of art are then reactivated. They do not refer to an original anymore, and they can be transported from one “space-time” to another. By means of reproduction they are detached from the domain of
Benjamin’s concept of “aura” because it is this aura of the work of art that tends to disappear with the advent of the arts of reproduction (photography and film).
What does the term mean exactly?
How can artwork reproduction entail a “decay of this aura”?
Why does such a decline represent a positive event in terms of politicization?
What does Benjamin mean by politics in his essay?
We define the aura as the unique phenomenon of distance, however close it may be.
If, while resting on a summer afternoon, …show more content…
Film, for instance, encourages the audience to assume a more critical attitude than theater does, because it allows the audience to identify with the actor through the camera Besides, film shows things “from different perspectives and enriches our field of perception”
Benjamin’s views on cinema as an art of the masses are much indebted to a Marxist conception of politics.
Actually, there are no political conceptions free of ideology although there have been many attempts to exploit and dominate the masses through art – Riefenstahl’s film Triumph of the Will produced in 1934 remains perhaps the best example of a very successful aesthetic enterprise of the kind.
It is only this latter use of ideology that threatens and betrays art because what seems to characterize art is precisely a “will” that never fully identifies itself with a “truth” or a “cause”.
Benjamin’s so-called “bipolar categories” (ritual / political, cult value / exhibition value) do not imply any dismissal of the artist’s creativity in the name of politics, nor do they praise the arts of reproduction (photography and film) in …show more content…
Benjamin’s idea is not that photography is in itself more revolutionary than other arts, but rather that its novelty (and film’s novelty too) entails a “decline of the aura” and discloses new possibilities for art.
On the other hand, it was perhaps hasty to draw conclusions about the use of new artistic media as he did. It is true that “even if we except commercial film, film itself has hardly evolved in the direction of politicization announced by Benjamin” (ROCHLITZ, 149).
It is more a question about authenticity than genuineness for what really matters is the fact that the work of art is now emancipated from its character of object
From now on, the original work does not bear any authority whatsoever.
First: because the reproductions became independent of it.
Second: because the copies can be now put into situations which would be out of reach for the original.
It is clear that his evaluation of the whole process of “liquidation of aura” is rather positive. The objects of art are then reactivated. They do not refer to an original anymore, and they can be transported from one “space-time” to another. By means of reproduction they are detached from the domain of